I am a MA/MBA candidate at the Lauder Institute and the Wharton School of Business. I focus on Russian politics, economics, and demography but also write more generally about Eastern Europe. Please note that all opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and that I do not speak in an official capacity for Lauder, Wharton, Forbes or any other organization.
I do my best to inject hard numbers (and flashy Excel charts) into conversations and debates that are too frequently driven by anecdotes. In addition to Forbes I've written for True/Slant, INOSMI, Salon, the National Interest, The Moscow Times, Russia Magazine, the Washington Post, and Quartz.
I frequently make pronouncements of great importance on Twitter @MarkAdomanis. Compliments? Complaints? Job offers? Please feel free to e-mail me at RussiaHand@gmail.com

Russia's Population Isn't Shrinking (It's Growing Very, Very Slowly)

On Thursday I had a chance to go to the Eurasia Foundation’s 20th anniversary gala (thanks Eurasia Foundation!) where I listened to a few very interesting speeches on Russia and the greater Eurasia region. One of these speeches was by Robert Zoellick, the former head of the World Bank and someone who is just a little bit more influential than your humble author. In the course of his remarks, which were primarily focused on the economic transformation that resulted from communism’s collapse, Zoellick made several offhand observations about how Russia’s population is collapsing, the death rate is rising, and alcoholism is increasing. If memory serves, he even quoted Lee Kuan Yew on the inevitability of Chinese colonization and takeover of Eastern Siberia.

To the (very limited) extent that anyone knows anything about Russian demographic trends, Zoellick’s view is the Washington consensus. “Everyone knows” that Russia’s population is nosediving, that things have gotten worse under Putin, and that it’s only a matter of time before the vast empty stretches of Siberia are taken over by other, more fecund, nationalities. While I can’t “prove” that the Chinese will never, at any point in the future, take over Eastern Siberia, the increase or decrease in Russia’s population is not a matter of speculation or esoteric scholarly debate: we have reliable and hard data, on what Russia’s population is. And, despite the chorus of voices claiming that Russia is depopulating, its population, in 2013, is actually marginally higher than it was back in 2006. As you can see in the chart below, Russia’s population is clearly not headed in a predictable, downward direction.

It’s true that Russia’s population was shrinking in the 1990′s and early 2000′s. It’s likely, though far from certain, that Russia’s population will shrink between now and 2020 or 2030. But it’s a simple matter of fact that at the moment Russia’s population is not rapidly shrinking, but slowly growing. It’s true that this tentative growth is entirely driven by immigration, but that is perfectly normal when you take a look at developed Western countries. Since 1971 the United States, which has much more robust demographics than virtually any other advanced country, has had one year in which its fertility rate was high enough for natural population growth: all the rest of the, substantial, growth in the US’ population has been driven exclusively by immigration.

I’m under no illusions that I’m “smarter” than Zoellick: if we both took an IQ test I have no doubt whatsoever that he’d blow me out of the water. But his view of a swiftly decaying and dying Russia, which is the default position among the US political elite, simply doesn’t take into account the substantial positive demographic changes that the country has experienced over the past decade. While the precise nature of US policy towards Russia is up for debate, in order to be effective that policy has to be based on an accurate understanding of Russian political, economic, and demographic realities. If Russia’s population was still shrinking at the rate that it was back in 2000, that would have a significant impact on the US’ approach. But if one of the assumptions guiding your Russia policy is that the country is depopulating at an accelerating rate, that policy is not going to be terribly effective because Russia is simply not de-populating at an accelerating rate.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Delighted to see you hedging your bet in a proper manner now, Mark. Your use of the terms “(very limited)” and “at the moment” bring the proper perspective to viewing Russian demographics. The two key points are the the Kremlin’s data can’t be trusted and that it’s very clear any population uptick is temporary. As such, the World Bank’s view of Russia is entirely proper, regardless of the details. Russia’s population is headed downward because the Kremlin is recklessly misusing the nation’s wealth, just as was done in Soviet times. Instead of thinking of the welfare of Russian citizens, the Kremlin thinks about cold war and imperialist glory. That’s why Russia doesn’t rank in the top 100 nations of the world for life expectancy, and no nation in that class can possibly hope to maintain its population for long.

Really? How is it clear? Are you psychic? Why is it clear that any uptick in Russia’s population is temporary, while it is not clear that upticks in the American population are temporary; it’s just going to keep growing and growing?

If your population growth is dependent upon immigration, how do you see an uptick in population growth being temporary? And what does life expectancy have to do with it, Jesus, you recite that catechism every time, like it makes you feel good or something. While you’re pondering life expectancy, you can factor in that life expectancy fell like a malfunctioning elevator for Russian males in the 90′s, when the meddling by your country wrecked the economy and caused a 6-year decline in life expectancy for that group. But what difference does that make if your growth is from immigration? Russia is the world’s second-most-popular destination for immigration.

Your comments follow a depressingly predictable pattern – one, disagree. Two, spout a bunch of talking points that you want to get out there, whether they have anything to do with the discussion or not.

No nation in that class can hope to maintain its population for long, eh? Is that right, Madame Demographist? Well, peep this, baby. Pakistan is far below the Russian Federation in life expectancy. The population of Pakistan has more than tripled since 1960.

Of course the dynamics of birth rates and death rates affect the population, but if 100% of your growth is from immigration – as is also the case in the United States – life expectancy for the native population is not the death knell you love to make out it is. And the population of the Russian Federation is still better than 80% ethnic Russians.

You’re not so far off yourself, with 13% of your population foreign-born.

“This is an assertion without evidence,” Yeah thats just delusional, il believe the very, very slow growth when i see it. Have you been outside Moscow or st perterburg, nothing but old people mostly. Just a few years ago Kremlin started beating the bell about declining population, and lord thank jesus all of the sudden the data is improving, i guess all the hiv, alcoholics and drug addicts people started having babies. you need a reality check where do you expect the evidence to come from? time for a trip to the depth of russia to open your eyes.

Yes, naturally, what is going on in some pokey little town in “the depth of Russia” is representative of what is happening in the entire country. What do you think statistics are for? So you can see beyond the next-door-neighbour’s barn. But feel free to disbelieve them if you like, as people often do when numbers contradict what they wish to believe. If it suits some bitter, masochistic corner of your soul to believe your country is dying, mostly because it deserves to, believe on.

when is said “the depth of Russia” i mean anything other then moscow or st perterburg, sorry if it was a little vague, i did not mean the 26 hour train trip to the polar circle. Also one must know, as you seem to be someone who is in touch with russia that moscow and perterburg recently grew only bc of major influx of muslims and russian city populations keeps declining. My main point that Kremlin and its statistics should not be trusted, manly bc of its track record. You can take take the propaganda and swallow it with a big spoon and start investing your money if you want, but that’s not going change reality, reality i see with my eyes and hear with my ears from the people that live there.

All right, then, let’s pretend the Kremlin’s mendacious, lying figures really are full of shit. How about the World Bank? Are they full of shit? Just making it up as they go along? Well, the World Bank says the population of Russia is growing.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/population

See those numbers? 141.91 Million people in 2010, 141.93 Million in 2012. Which number is larger? Not a huge leap, granted, but still steady upward movement by a hundred thousand or so every year.

As for the rural areas draining away to cities, I would not be at all surprised to find that happening, as it is a global shift which sees rural populations dying out all over the world. It’s called urbanization, and by 2050, 70% of the world’s population is expected to be living in cities, with less-developed countries seeing a faster pace of urbanization.

However, according – once again – to those lying fabrication artists at the World Bank, Russia is less susceptible at this point to the global trend, and rural populations are growing at about the same pace as is the national population as a whole.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/rural-population-wb-data.html

Moreover, the percentage of the population living in urban settings in Russia actually shrunk from last report to the present. Less people living in the cities, but the population is getting larger overall. Where are they living? Under bridges?

I realize that’s not the way things look to you, but your outlook is hardly national. You know, what, maybe a few hundred people, personally? I’m trying to point out that your personal experience, which might well be exactly as you say, has little to do with how things are going on a national scale, according to non-Kremlin sources that everyone seems to think are credible, although they are no less liars than anyone else.

An opinion that goes with the current flow of prejudice is always more valuable than an inconsequential fact. I cannot remember a single positive opinion of the Russian regime in the Western press since the drunken Boris quit. The actual outcome of the Cold War did not permit the US regime to consume the fruits of victory eternally in the space once occupied by history. This seems to have caused deep offence among Western flunkies of Finance Capital. They associate the current unhappy state of affairs in the West with some imagined Russian offence.

Why is the Kremlin’s data untrustworthy? Does LaRussophobe really believe that Russia keeps two sets of figures, one to run the country and one to deceive the rest of the world. The CIA’s figures were so bad that they had to add 3 million to their population estimate after the Russian census. This suggests that neocon wishful thinking is still as powerful in parts of modern Washington as it was under Bush/Rumsfeld.

With all due respect, Mr. Adomanis isn’t just implying he’s more “in the know” than Secretary Zoellick. He’s also suggesting that he knows better than the Russian president. Last year, Vladimir Putin himself outlined that if current trends continue Russia’s population will dip to 107 million people by 2050 (See here: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2012/0214/Putin-vows-to-halt-Russia-s-population-plunge-with-babies-immigrants).

There’s no evidence at all to suggest that current trends are not in fact continuing… or that, if some sea change has in fact occurred, it would be possible to notice the ameliorating effect so soon. In other words, the dominant view that Russia is in a death spiral might be so prevalent because it is, in fact, correct. Imagine that.

I understand a “death spiral” to be “an accelerating rate of de-population.” In 2012 Russia’s population was naturally stable and grew by around 300,000 due to immigration. Since Russia’s population, even accounting for immigration, was shrinking by around 750,000 a year as recently as 2003, I don’t see how it’s possible to argue that Russia *is* actually in a “death spiral” because its rate of depopulation dramatically shrunk and then reversed.

If you want to argue that Russia’s long-term trends will lead it towards doom that’s fine. But, and perhaps I’m just being pedantic here, I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that a country with a population that *at the moment* is slowly growing *is* actually experiencing accelerating depopulation.

Lets assume Adomanis’ position is true. Then it leaves the reader with a conundrum: The author’s opponents are either incompetent or hold on to their positions as a matter of policy. Adomanis’ argument implies that it is a matter of him being a better expert on the subject. This should be an uncomfortable if not impossible conclusion. Does it seem more logical to question the validity of the author’s position?

We can certainly argue semantics, if you feel the need. I think there’s ample evidence in the available literature to suggest that there is, in fact, a death spiral… albeit one that has temporarily plateaued. (Russian demographers like Vishnevsky believe the same, incidentally).

The larger point I was making, though, is that your analysis cuts against not only the dominant thinking in Washington, but in Moscow as well. It’s one thing to assert that America’s understanding of the issue is incorrect. It’s quite another to say that the Kremlin’s is.

The “temporary plateau” that you dismiss was foreseen by almost no one – I know this because I read all of the relevant demographic reports and academic analyses. The forecasts made a decade ago forecast that, in 2013, Russia’s population would be several million smaller than it is now and would be quickly plunging. Instead, there have been some rather significant improvements. If you think I’m being daft, you can take a look at what some other researchers have to say: http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol28/32/28-32.pdf

My position isn’t that Russia’s demographics will inevitably surprise on the upside, but merely that we should constantly try to incorporate new data.

Anyone mind if I open a window? It’s getting a little smug in here. There; that’s better.

If Vishnevsky actually uses the words “death spiral” anywhere in any of his numerous position papers on Russian demographics, I will publicly eat the page on which it appears. Nor does he appear to believe anything of the sort. The perfectly reasonable position he advocates is that the first harbingers of the coming demographic crisis appeared in the 1960′s, that he is extremely skeptical of the possibility that the problem can be resolved by augmentation of the natural birth rate, and that “In spite of all its risks and challenges, immigration offers Russia a chance to survive and to carry out a kind of peaceful expansion”. Risks, and challenges. Expansion. The words “death spiral” and “hopeless” do not appear anywhere in any of his works to the very best of my knowledge.

http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_4961

In his belief that the Russian Federation must develop a rational and sensible, manageable immigration policy, he is joined by many peers of his generation.

http://magazines.russ.ru/oz/2004/4/2004_4_35.html

Why, of all the countries on the planet, is Russia some kind of grotesque failure if it must rely on immigration to swell its ranks? The natural birth rate in the USA has been below natural replacement rate for nearly a generation, and the USA has relied on massive immigration to continue population growth. When I say “massive”, what I mean is that although Russia is the second-most-popular destination in the world for immigrants, it is a distant second, and the United States receives almost 4 times as many immigrants annually.

This does not suggest Russia could not take more – it could, but a nationalistic streak running through mainstream politics prevents such a solution from being politically acceptable. Again, so? Is the USA’s immigration policy popular with all Americans? It certainly is not.

As far back as 1972, the United States Presidential Commission on Population Growth and the American Future recommended population stabilization (when the nation held 210 million, against the better than 315 million it is today), concluding, “The health of our country does not depend on [population growth], nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person”. If you were a government and had to set priorities for a sustainable future, you could do a lot worse than the health of the country, the vitality of business and the welfare of the average citizen.

If the population in Russia did drop to the most ghastly estimate, around 90 million; yet again, so? It would still have almost triple the current population of Canada, which is the world’s second-largest country by landmass. Is Canada a tottering, growth-starved wreck? Far from it; it enjoys a standard of living equal to that of the USA, a stable financial system and world-classs healthcare. Does Canada feel the need to restrict immigration? Yes, it does.

Russia probably could manage just fine on half its current population, although I doubt very much it will come to that. There is no reason to imagine the Russian population cannot continue to grow slowly, although sustainment of the current level would be a more reasonable goal, while a decline would represent neither a national failure or a “Take THAT!!! In your FACE!!” victory for the cone-vision charlatans who currently dominate western discourse.

Mark, as you stated, the slight uptick in population is because of immigration. I assume that the immigration is from countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. Nearly all of those countries, as well as Russia, however, are on the edge of a severe dearth of women in their 20s and 30s. Countries with extremely low fertility rates include, of course, every single ex-Soviet European country like the Ukraine and the Baltic States. Their populations are rapidly disappearing, and they soon won’t have many young people left to emigrate. However, even Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and other Asian countries have low fertility rates. Some very small countries, like Kyrgystan and Tajikistan have higher fertility rates of 2.7 and 2.8, but they are too small to make much of an impact. Also, many of the immigrants may have been ethnic Russians living outside Russia, the population of which is dwindling. Finally considering the Russian hostility to people of the east, there will probably be a big push-back against non-Russian, or at least non-European, immigration. The cohort of young Russian men eligible for military service is shrinking. I would be glad to bet on China being in Siberia by 2030 (hopefully I will still be here too, to collect).

There are 4 million Slavs in Kazakhstan, 0.5 million each in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and hundreds of thousands in Turkemistan and Azerbaijan. In ideal case the Russian government would have encouraged their repatriation to Russia. But it seems that Putin is against this move, as less than 30% of the Slavs vote for him. On the other hand, he is encouraging the immigration of Muslims like Azeris and Uzbecs, as they vote en bloc for his party. Also, the government is not interested in the repatriation of Russian speaking people in Germany (3.3 million) and Israel (1.2 million). Already Muslims are approaching around 7% of the Russian population. There will be no Russia when they reach 15%.

A xenophobe like Putin encourages only non-Russians to immigrate to Russia? You may be correct, but that is quiet counter-intuitive. Perhaps, like Stalin, his grip on power is best when there is an enemy to blame. I thought that the Slavs left in the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union were older, and that the younger ethnic Russians and other Slavs had already left, for the most part. As to Kazakhstan, it seems to be economically stable, so there is less incentive for people to leave.

Mark, why didn’t you use numbers for 2004-2005? According to gsk they’ve recalculated the 2004-2009 time period using 2010 census, so 2004-2013 decade can be completely trusted. Also, please note that city population is rapidly growing since 2006-2007 by 300 – 400 th. people each year, which mean that there won’t be a lack of manpower in the places it really needed any time soon.

I like to read horror stories about death spiral, extinction of Russians or similar nonsense. As a matter of fact many russian parents encounter the following problem: there are no vacant places in kindergartens because of unexpected inflow of kids in last years so they have to pay bribes to get their children there. I can sound cynical but shorter life expectancy in Russia will keep the age balance in more healthy ratio.

Well, I have the feeling that arguments that are flying back and forth can be divided in two basic group Russia-haters (with larussphobe as insane extreme) and Russia-lovers like Oleg Vissarion (and myself as sane extreme) Mark Adomanis is in the very honest mild liberal reporter against completely insane and dishonets western media.

For russophobes is seems truth doesn’t matter. They want just to spread their hateful anti-Putin and anti-Russian point of view (larussophobe, masha gessen, ariel kohen etc. etc. etc) no matter what

The question is who these extreme anti-Putin and anti_Russians are writing for and whom they are trying to fool ? American government, American public or just to satisfy their own microscopic insignificant and very stupid ego ?

I heard that fear of Chinese colonization of Russia’s east from Russians when I was there (2003).

Something missed by a lot of Westerners, is that the easternmost part of Russia is not Siberia — it ‘s the Russian Far East. Siberia does not extend to the Pacific. Provinces such as Primorye (where Vladivostok is located) are not a part of Siberia.

The Russian Far East is also even less densely populated the Siberia, however.

I am terribly impressed by all these IQ superior minds living in Washington DC and making useless generalizations on the state of Russian demographics and economy having no clue about what’s really going on in the country! I have only one advice- if you want to contribute articles to serious publications, go and live in the country for a while and understand it better…